IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt

Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> Fri, 19 August 2011 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0521811E8089 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TKIYzWzYYBA3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE1D11E8082 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7JJLibi029009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:21:45 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.182]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:21:44 -0400
From: Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, "Robert Raszuk (raszuk)" <raszuk@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:21:43 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcxdLxZwRlVcsgt/SdePE1crIJ8c9gBVYSUwAAf/EAA=
Message-ID: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D721F23B884C@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <20110817183606.4053.38107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D721F23B7CB6@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4E4C4438.2090702@cisco.com> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05B1B438@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05B1B438@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:20:49 -0000

Hi Rajiv,

>From the document perspective, I'd like to see this statement in the draft as an assumption or suggestion for this change. Thanks for the clarification Rajiv and Robert!


-Samita 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Robert Raszuk (raszuk); Samita Chakrabarti
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt

Samita,

No additional latency expected. Thanks.

Cheers,
Rajiv


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Raszuk (raszuk)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:44 PM
> To: Samita Chakrabarti
> Cc: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); idr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-
> 04.txt
> 
> Hi Samita,
> 
> Allow me to make an observation that today BGP already validates 
> reachability to next hops, before considering path with such next hop
to
> be valid and to be eligible for best path selection.
> 
> In the light of the above Rajiv's proposal does not introduce any 
> additional delay nor does it cause any impact on "bgp convergence".
> 
> The only place which changes for some applications of BGP is the place 
> where you validate such next hop liveness/reachabilty. And as this is 
> very implementation dependent I think we should not discuss those 
> aspects on this mailing list.
> 
> Best regards,
> R.
> 
> > Hi Rajiv,
> >
> > This is a good work clarifying the path-availability check in BGP 
> > path selection. Is this document supposed to update RFC 4271 section
> > 9.1.2 in general? I wonder, if you have any data or thoughts on 
> > whether the additonal check at the data-plane level will add any 
> > latency in BGP path selection process and thus have any effect on 
> > convergence? A short paragraph on the impact on timing might be 
> > useful for implementors as it seems running BFD or any other 
> > mechanism to keep an up-to-date information of path-availability at 
> > the data-plane will avoid any delay in the path selection process.
> >
> > -Samita

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email